Reading List for National Academies' "Science of Science Communication" Lecture on the Media & Science Policy Debates

On Tuesday, May 22, I will be delivering a lecture as part of the National Academies' Sackler Colloquium on the "Science of Science Communication," reviewing the role of the media in science policy debates.  Below I have included a reading list specific to key subjects covered.


UPDATE: The video of the lecture along with those of my fellow panelists Dominique Brossard and William Eveland is now available online.  I have also posted online the slides for download

Overviews on Communication and Science Policy Debates 

  • Nisbet, M.C. & Scheufele, D.A. (2009). What’s Next for Science Communication? Promising Directions and Lingering Distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96 (10), 1767-1778. (PDF).
  • Nisbet, M.C. (2010). Civic Education About Climate Change: Opinion-Leaders, Communication Infrastructure, and Participatory Culture. Commissioned White Paper in support of the National Academies Roundtable on Climate Change Education. Washington. [PDF]  
  • Brossard, D., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2009). A Critical Appraisal of Models of Public Understanding of Science: Using Practice to Inform Theory. In L. Kahlor & P. Stout (Eds.), Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication (pp. 11-39). New York: Routledge. [Google Books Excerpt]
  • Agenda-Setting and Framing Effects on News Audiences

  • Nisbet, M.C. & Feldman, L. (2011). The Social Psychology of Political Communication. In D. Hook, B. Franks and M. Bauer (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan. [PDF]
  • Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication & Society, 3 (2), 297-316. [Abstract].
  • Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122. [PDF]
  • Scheufele, D.A. & Iyengar, S. (forthcoming). The State of Framing Research: A Call for New Directions. InThe Oxford Handbook of Political Communication. New York: Oxford University Press. [PDF]
  • Agenda-Building, Frame-Building, and Journalistic Decisions

  • Nisbet, M.C. (2008). Agenda-Building. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of Communication. New York: Blackwell Publishing. [PDF]
  • McComas, K., & Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling stories about global climate change. Communication Research, 26(1),30.
  • Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing Science: The Stem Cell Controversy in an Age of Press/Politics.  Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics,8(2), 36-70. [PDF]
  • Nisbet, M., & Huge, M. (2007). Where do science debates come from? Understanding attention cycles and framing. The media, the public, and agricultural biotechnology, 193–230. [PDF].
  • Lewenstein, Bruce V. 1995. Science and the Media. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. G. Petersen and T. Pinch. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. [Google Books excerpt]
  • Fahy, J. & Nisbet, M.C. (2011). The Science Journalist Online: Shifting Roles and Emerging Practices. Journalism: Theory, Practice & Criticism. [HTML].
  • Perceptions and Analysis of False Balance in Science Coverage

  • Eveland, W. P., Jr., & Shah, D. V. (2003). The impact of individual and interpersonal factors on perceived news media bias. Political Psychology, 24, 101-117. [PDF]
  • Besley, J. & Nisbet, M.C. (2011). How Scientists View the Media, the Public and the Political Process.  Public Understanding of Science. [PDF].
  • Boykoff, M. & Boykoff, J. (2004). Balance as Bias: Global Warming and the U.S. Prestige Press. Global Environmental Change Vol. 15: No. 2 : 125-136.[PDF]
  • Boykoff, M. (2007). Flogging a Dead Norm? Media Coverage of Anthropogenic Climate Change in United States and United Kingdom, 2003–2006. Area 39(4) [PDF].
  • Nisbet, M.C. (2011). Death of a Norm? Evaluating False Balance in Media Coverage. Chapter 3 in Climate Shift: Clear Vision for the Next Decade of Public Debate. Washington, DC: American University (HTML).
  • Feldman, L. et al. (2011). Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. International Journal of Press/Politics. [HTML].
  • Elite Cues, Polarization, and Public Perceptions

  • Abramowitz, A. (2012). The Polarized Public? Why American Government Is So Dysfunctional.  New York: Pearson. [Description]
  • Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The Competition for Worldviews: Values, Information, and Public Support for Stem Cell Research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 1, 90-112. [PDF]
  • Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A. (2008). Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes Toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. [Abstract]
  • Nisbet, M.C. (2011).  Public Opinion and Political Participation.  In D. Schlosberg, J. Dryzek, & R. Norgaard (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society.  London, UK: Oxford University Press. [HTML].
  • Pew Center for People and the Press (2011, November). Partisan Divided Over Clean Energy Grows. [HTML]
  • Scheufele, D.A & Nisbet, M.C. (in press). Online News and the Demise of Political Disagreement. Communication Yearbook. [HTML]
  • Framing, Audience Segmentation, and Public Engagement on Climate Change

  • Nisbet, M.C. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter to Public Engagement. Environment, 51 (2), 514-518. (HTML).
  • Maibach, E. W., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., & Mertz, C. (2011). Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PloS One, 6(3), e17571. [HTML]
  • Maibach, E., Nisbet, M.C. et al. (2010). Reframing Climate Change as a Public Health Issue: An Exploratory Study of Public Reactions. BMC Public Health 10: 299 (HTML).
  • Reading Lists and Student Blog Posts from Relevant Courses at American University

    Science Communication in Political Controversies

    Science and Environmental Communication

    Seminar on Advanced Media Theory

     

    3D printing might save your life one day. It's transforming medicine and health care.

    What can 3D printing do for medicine? The "sky is the limit," says Northwell Health researcher Dr. Todd Goldstein.

    Northwell Health
    Sponsored by Northwell Health
    • Medical professionals are currently using 3D printers to create prosthetics and patient-specific organ models that doctors can use to prepare for surgery.
    • Eventually, scientists hope to print patient-specific organs that can be transplanted safely into the human body.
    • Northwell Health, New York State's largest health care provider, is pioneering 3D printing in medicine in three key ways.
    Keep reading Show less
    Big Think Edge
    • "I consider that a man's brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose," Sherlock Holmes famously remarked.
    • In this lesson, Maria Konnikova, author of Mastermind: How to think like Sherlock Holmes, teaches you how to optimize memory, Holmes style.
    • The goal is to expand one's limited "brain attic," so that what used to be a small space can suddenly become much larger because we are using the space more efficiently.

    Active ingredient in Roundup found in 95% of studied beers and wines

    The controversial herbicide is everywhere, apparently.

    (MsMaria/Shutterstock)
    Surprising Science
    • U.S. PIRG tested 20 beers and wines, including organics, and found Roundup's active ingredient in almost all of them.
    • A jury on August 2018 awarded a non-Hodgkin's lymphoma victim $289 million in Roundup damages.
    • Bayer/Monsanto says Roundup is totally safe. Others disagree.
    Keep reading Show less
    Big Think Edge
    • Our ability to behave rationally depends not just on our ability to use the facts, but on our ability to give those facts meaning. To be rational, we need both facts and feelings. We need to be subjective.
    • In this lesson, risk communication expert David Ropeik teaches you how human rationality influences our perception of risk.
    • By the end of it, you'll understand the pitfalls of your subjective risk perception system so that you can avoid these traps in the future.